Effect of selection for growth rate on embryonic breast muscle development in turkeys

Abstract

Muscle development at 20 and 25 d of incubation was studied in a randombred control line (RBC2), a subline (F) of RBC2 selected only for increased 16-wk BW, a commercial sire line (B), and reciprocal crosses of the F and B lines. Muscle samples from three males and three females of each genetic group were collected in such a manner to avoid contraction. After fixing, the muscles were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, measurements of muscle fiber width, muscle fiber bundle length and width, number of fibers within a 15.6 microm2 area, and extracellular matrix perimysial (PW) and endomysial (EW) width were taken with an Olympus XI 70 microscope equipped with an Olympus Magna Fire digital camera linked to Image Pro software. From each slide, 20 measurements were taken for each characteristic analyzed. In most of the muscle traits measured, additive genetic variation, as indicated by line differences, occurred when the RBC2 line was included in the comparison of pure lines. However, when only the B and F lines were compared, line differences were less frequent. In comparisons of the B and F lines and their reciprocal crosses, heterosis, as measured by contrasts of the average of the pure lines and the average of the reciprocal crosses, was an important source of variation for individual fiber measurements (negative) and extracellular space (positive) at 20 d of incubation but was less important at 25 d of incubation. No significant interactions between genetic group and sex were noted at 20 d of incubation, but such interactions were frequent at 25 d of incubation. These results suggest that muscle organizational differences between the two sexes begin to occur between these two ages and are not the same for different genetic groups.

Myofiber development during embryonic to neonatal development in duck breeds differing in muscle growth rates

“…However, none of these correlations was statistically significant. This may confirm the reports that, unlike mammals, the selection for bodyweight in poultry has no effect on the fiber composition (Fowler et al 1980;Aberle and Stewart 1983;Remignon et al 1994;Ducro et al 1995;Velleman et al 2002).…”

Effects of different rearing systems on meat production traits and meat fiber microstructure of Beijing‐you chicken

“…The muscle samples were placed in 4% (v/v) buffered formalin fixative pH 7.0 at 4°C for a minimum of 12 h. After fixation, muscle fiber diameter was measured according to the method described by Velleman et al . (). Briefly, the samples were embedded in paraffin and the 5‐μm‐thick transverse paraffin sections were collected from the muscles and transferred onto microscope slides (CITOGLAS, Haimen, China).…”

Comparison of Muscle Fiber and Meat Quality Characteristics in Different Japanese Quail Lines

“…For example, porcine muscles harboring a larger muscle fiber, especially type IIB fiber (fast-twitch and glycolytic), exhibit a rapid early postmortem glycolytic rate, paler surface, higher drip loss, and tougher meat compared to muscles harboring a smaller muscle fiber, which seems to be associated with the pale, soft, and exudative (PSE) condition (Choi and Kim, 2009). Like the PSE condition in pork, the poultry industry has recently experienced a meat quality problem due to a change in the morphological and metabolic characteristics of muscle fiber resulting from a selection for increased ultimate muscle mass (Velleman et al, 2002). There are many studies investigating how genetic selection influences muscle fiber and meat quality characteristics in chicken and turkey (Fowler et al, 1980; Cherel et al, 1994; Remignon et al, 1995; Velleman et al, 2002; 2003).…”

“…Like the PSE condition in pork, the poultry industry has recently experienced a meat quality problem due to a change in the morphological and metabolic characteristics of muscle fiber resulting from a selection for increased ultimate muscle mass (Velleman et al, 2002). There are many studies investigating how genetic selection influences muscle fiber and meat quality characteristics in chicken and turkey (Fowler et al, 1980; Cherel et al, 1994; Remignon et al, 1995; Velleman et al, 2002; 2003). However, there are only a few studies conducted on meat quality characteristics between the Japanese quail lines, even though there are many reports regarding the effects of genetic selection on ultimate muscle mass and fiber characteristics (Narinc et al, 2013; Choi et al, 2014a; Shin et al, 2015).…”